David Frum, former White House speech writer and senior editor at The Atlantic, discusses his book, “Trumpocracy”, at Politics and Prose on 2/7/18.
tonight speaker is David from one of the
00:09
company’s leading conservative
00:11
commentators he’s a former speechwriter
00:14
and special assistant to George W Bush
00:17
and he’s a senior editor at the Atlantic
00:22
Trump aqua C is his ninth book and in it
00:26
he examines the first year of the Trump
00:28
administration in Trump’s demand for
00:32
public and private flattery in his
00:34
expectation that the press be complicit
00:36
rather than objective in his paralysis
00:39
of the state by failing to stop it as
00:43
well as filling the ranks of his
00:44
administration with incompetence and
00:46
self secret David Fromm sees evidence
00:49
that in his words we are living through
00:52
the most dangerous challenge to the free
00:55
government of the United States did
00:57
anyone alive has encountered please join
01:00
me in welcoming David Collins
01:09
thank you very much thank you to the
01:12
many friends here when a deep deep
01:14
pleasure history of politics and froze
01:16
like I think most of you I have spent
01:18
hundreds of hours usually on the lower
01:21
level and the children spoke some cake
01:23
and it’s um it’s nice to be here at the
01:28
microphone and not expected to buy cake
01:33
because we are also in a central
01:39
location of this new era here paces away
01:42
from the common Pizza where the nearest
01:46
please a lot because but the nearest
01:48
grace and mercy that would have been the
01:50
site of one of the most horrible
01:52
massacres of children the American
01:54
history and I the gunman I he had this
01:59
moment of rationality maybe even witness
02:04
even something more than that where he
02:06
did not commit a terrible crime you’d
02:08
come to Camille but but for that this
02:11
would be a central ground and it is a
02:13
reminder that lies disinformation there
02:19
this is a story that can be written in
02:21
blood as well as in tears um I don’t
02:26
want to depress you I think about though
02:27
every time I Drive past that corner I
02:30
want to think instead about having a
02:34
story that Norm Ornstein sometimes tells
02:36
as a way of understanding a little bit
02:38
my bonafide ace on this book I mean I
02:40
have this problem which is I like
02:42
everyone on television predicted that
02:43
Donald Trump would lose the election and
02:45
when I go back on television office
02:47
trumpets they will throw that in my face
02:49
and say why should why should we listen
02:50
to you because you got the prediction
02:52
wrong so norm Ornstein often tells a
02:54
joke about a friend of his who was a you
02:56
see astok a gambler on the ponies and
02:59
there’s someone who belonged to his
03:01
father’s generation in fact he the story
03:03
takes place in the 1950s to be precise
03:06
on May the 5th of 1955 that morning Norm
03:09
Ornstein father’s friend woke up at 5:55
03:11
a.m. took the 5th Avenue bus down to his
03:14
office at 55 pine we proceeded to go to
03:16
work as a bookkeeper balancing the books
03:18
the books of the company was working on
03:20
did at lunchtime ultimately balanced at
03:21
55
03:22
million 555555 on each side of the
03:26
ledger broke for lunch had a ham
03:28
sandwich and a cup of coffee that cost
03:30
five dollars and fifty five cents at the
03:31
local restaurant and he realized God was
03:33
sending him a sign he went to his bank
03:37
withdrew all the cash in his checking
03:38
account $555 took a taxicab to the old
03:42
Aqueduct Racetrack put everything on the
03:44
fifth horse in the fifth race who
03:47
naturally finished fifth so it’s not
03:56
enough to read the signs correctly
03:59
there’s a work of interpretation here
04:00
and that’s what I got wrong Tran policy
04:04
is not the story of a man it’s the story
04:06
of a system of power one of the problems
04:09
I have in speaking about this book and
04:11
I’ve been doing a lot of speaking and
04:12
thank you for listening has been that
04:14
whereas in times past a good book talk
04:17
like a well made man suit could go five
04:20
or six uses between cleanings now the
04:22
pace of events is such that you you can
04:25
never speak in the same way twice there
04:28
was always news today’s news is the
04:31
staff secretary of the White House has
04:33
resigned because of very credible
04:37
allegations that he physically abused
04:39
beat two of his ex-wives and a third
04:41
woman as well I think one of the ways to
04:45
think about this is a way of reminding
04:46
us that the con that attitudes about the
04:50
sexes are at the basis of the system of
04:52
power that is Trump och recei it is
04:54
again and again true that you discover
04:58
that people in this administration
04:59
people in this presidency I don’t mean
05:01
the administration because there are
05:02
lots of people who are doing the
05:04
country’s work at the Department of
05:06
Defense and homeland security and
05:08
housing and well no not Housing and
05:09
Urban Development
05:10
that’s a sinkhole
05:13
but but in other places and they are
05:16
Schedule C federal you know political
05:18
appointees and they are doing proper
05:19
work and we thank them for that and we
05:21
it this work has to be done and it would
05:23
be worse if the work were not being done
05:25
but in the White House in the presidency
05:26
we have seen person after person caught
05:30
in front after a front based on
05:34
something that is really wrong campaka
05:36
see is a system of power it is not just
05:40
the lurid personality of the president
05:42
it is the connection between this
05:44
president and the rest of the White
05:46
House it is the empowerment the pact
05:48
between the president and his party in
05:50
Congress it is the support that is given
05:52
to the president by Republican donors
05:55
many of whom do not like him at all and
05:56
it is above all resting on the bond
05:58
between the president and the largest
06:01
minority group in the country which is
06:04
that compact group of people who like
06:07
Donald Trump because not because of what
06:10
he is delivering in material terms but
06:12
because they see in him a reaffirmation
06:16
of core their core ideas about who
06:20
should be on top and who should be
subordinated the essence of Donald Trump
the man is cruelty and one of the things
that I think that we have to face up to
06:30
ourselves about the species you know the
06:32
Romans built the Coliseum about the year
06:34
70 and it stood and actually their
06:37
regular shows there for the next 400
06:38
years as I understand their shows twice
06:41
sometimes three times a week they were
06:43
almost always sold out and over so for
06:46
400 years you could put set bums in
06:48
seats in this giant auditorium to watch
06:50
human beings hack themselves to death
06:52
with swords and clubs and people came to
06:55
see it and that’s something we need to
06:57
face about ourselves we are not as some
07:01
are horrified by cruelty but some are
07:03
fascinated by it and some are enthralled
07:05
by it and some are energized by it and
07:08
that is the spectacle that Donald Trump
07:10
has offered the country I want to talk
07:13
today because I’m going to speak very
07:15
briefly and then take a lot of questions
07:16
so I know this is very energized crowd I
07:18
want to talk not about all the bad
07:20
things that you all know and many of you
07:22
know them better than me but about the
07:24
signs of hope
07:25
that I
07:25
springing up about us because the
07:29
biggest surprise to me in the tour I’ve
07:32
done to promote the book has been this
07:37
seeing something that I believed in but
07:40
hadn’t seen before which is this
07:42
extraordinary level of social energy and
07:44
social mobilisation people say what can
07:48
we do in a time like this well you’re
07:49
here you’re here and and you’re not here
07:52
to hear me because believe me I’ve been
07:54
in the store a lot and no one was good
07:58
nobody particularly cared what I had to
08:00
say about anything you’re here because
08:03
the times you’re here because of each
08:05
other because that you draw strength
08:07
from each other at a time like this that
08:09
Franklin Roosevelt spoke of the courage
08:12
of national unity and we are building
08:15
toward a kind of sense of it’s still
08:18
very contested but at least three fifths
08:22
of the nation is building toward a
08:23
spirit of unity about what is acceptable
08:24
and what is not so here are the signs of
08:27
hope that I see in this processing the
08:29
first is Donald we have lived for a long
08:32
time in frozen politics imagine a Rip
08:35
Van Winkle in the year 1990 or a time
08:37
traveler who can go forward in time or
08:39
back the time traveler steps forward in
08:41
time 25 years from 1990 to 2015
08:44
rubs the sleep out of his eyes and asks
08:47
who’s running for president Bush and
08:49
Clinton what are they talking about Oh
08:52
Iraq and health care and the deficit
08:54
that doesn’t sound like anything has
08:56
changed oh by the way who’s the biggest
08:57
jerk in Washington Newt Gingrich
08:59
nothing’s changed
09:02
nothing has changed the country’s
09:05
changed in 1990 there’s no internet in
09:07
1990 China is poor in in 1990 the Cold
09:10
War is just barely behind us the country
09:13
has changed but the politics are frozen
09:14
now imagine that time travel are going
09:16
backwards 25 years from 1990 its 1965
09:20
the cities are ablaze with riots the
09:23
most powerful man in Washington is the
09:24
head of the afl-cio that was a trade
09:27
union association that organized workers
09:30
and helped them yet anyway people here
09:32
may remember followed by J Edgar Hoover
09:35
and there were conservative
09:38
segregationist Democrats there were
09:40
liberal Republicans it was a different
09:42
world in a dynamic country like this
09:44
things do not stay frozen normally the
09:46
way they were in politics between 1990
09:48
in 2015 whatever else Donald Trump has
09:50
done he has thrown the jigsaw puzzle of
09:54
American politics up into the air and a
09:56
new pattern will land a pattern that
09:58
maps better to the country then the
10:00
frozen politics of the past quarter
10:02
century where the same people often
10:04
literally the same people but the same
10:06
configurations of people talked about
10:08
the same things in the same way even as
10:10
the world wildly changed around them
10:11
Donald Trump has forced this country to
10:14
confront a series of issues that it was
10:17
easy for people in the privileged or
10:20
successful parts of the country to
10:21
ignore this terrible drug crisis that is
10:24
left that has killed more Americans now
10:26
than the Vietnam War what is happening
10:28
to middle class wages the this the
10:31
crisis of despair and loneliness if you
10:33
do polls and I’ve become interested in
10:35
polls that ask questions like do you
10:38
have a lot of close friends and that is
10:40
like a straight line drop from 1970 to
10:43
now I saw pull the other day that asked
10:45
the question have you been outside the
10:47
home in the past 24 hours and the
10:50
proportion of Americans who say no it’s
10:51
on a voice on a rocket rise that in a
10:54
country that is more alienated night
10:56
it’s easy for those of us who live in
10:59
cities who are connected who feel a
11:01
sense of purpose not to see this
11:03
Donald Trump has forced us to see it and
11:07
that’s a gift
11:08
Donald Trump has changed has forced
11:11
people with
11:13
political affiliations that look
11:15
increasingly to me old-fashioned what we
11:17
used to cook the part of what we used to
11:19
call the left when we used to call the
11:20
the right to take reckonings of ways in
11:23
which our politics had been have become
11:24
obsolete I ventured that in a place like
11:27
this if I were speaking four years ago I
11:30
would have accounted a lot of resistance
11:32
and maybe more if I had said that people
11:34
like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden
11:35
are not heroes today people understand
11:39
what they were doing and who they were
11:41
doing it for and they understand that
11:43
threats to your country come not only at
11:44
the form of rockets and tanks but also
11:47
in the forms of subversion and espionage
11:49
and these new kinds of cyberattack and
11:52
that those who stand on the frontiers of
11:55
the country to guard it against these
11:56
clandestine attacks are defending you
11:57
just as much as soldiers sailors and
11:59
Marines are defending you and we have
12:01
seen I think an awakening on the liberal
12:04
side of the spectrum of an awareness of
12:06
the importance of this kind of this form
12:07
of national defense meanwhile my side of
12:10
the political spectrum we’ve had a vice
12:13
of being kind of understanding of the
12:17
little unfairness of life as says just
12:20
part of the price of being human the
12:21
bumps along the road what Donald Trump
12:23
has taken all of those casual cruelties
12:25
in the casual brutishness and and the
12:30
disregard for women and the indifference
12:32
to people with problems and and has
12:35
taken it and put it on a Jumbotron in
12:38
front of the nation and a Jumbotron that
12:40
is on display 24 hours a day
12:43
illuminated by this the push tweets of
12:46
the most tweeted man on earth look at it
12:49
look at it look at it do you like it do
12:52
you like it and a lot of people who
12:54
would have when it was on a very small
12:55
screen said man say I I don’t like that
12:58
at all that’s horrible to say I won’t
13:00
put up with it anyway John one of the
13:02
gifts of Donald Trump is he’s told he’s
13:04
made America’s friends around the world
13:06
who often have a difficult relationship
13:08
with the United States understand what
13:11
it means when America steps away from
13:13
its leadership role when America says ok
13:15
we are going home we are going to be in
13:17
word and how our friends around the
13:19
world are left alone what a terrible
13:22
time to be a citizen of South Korea what
13:24
a terrible time to be a citizen of a
13:26
stone
13:26
you had protection that you once counted
13:30
on and that is now now looked like
13:33
something you can’t count and you are
13:35
suddenly forced to confront a world in
13:36
which its meaning and its structure
13:38
heaven have been kicked away a gift but
13:42
out of that they get the understanding
13:44
of realizing there was a world order and
13:47
that backed by the United States and it
13:48
did do mostly good and we need it back
13:51
and maybe if we can get through this
13:53
passage together that we and the
13:55
Americans together can build something
13:58
new in which the United States finds
14:00
again a constructive role for itself as
14:02
the under girder of this world order I
14:04
think that I see a gift in Donald Trump
14:07
in that it’s so often said that
14:09
presidents make us appreciate the
14:12
qualities they they lacked that you know
14:17
Barack Obama for whom I did not vote he
14:19
had many good qualities but the people
14:22
who loved him best said you know that
14:24
the the first hour of an Obama analysis
14:27
was fascinating the second still very
14:30
very interesting but by the time you got
14:33
the sixth or seventh hour of that in you
14:35
know powerful analytic intelligence you
14:36
know somebody here needs to make a
14:38
decision and so we have now the opposite
14:41
someone who makes decisions on the
14:44
toilet without any information what we
14:49
have we have seen Donald Trump is forces
14:51
to confront is the importance of our
14:53
mutuality our common identity as
14:57
citizens of kindness of respect for each
15:00
other and a recognition of the the
15:03
preciousness not just of some but of all
15:05
you know one of the reasons I think I’ve
15:07
called this book the corruption of the
15:09
American Republic is because it’s so
15:10
many people are implicated in what has
15:13
gone wrong not just Republican members
15:15
of Congress but so many more it’s a
15:19
crisis not just of this Republic but of
15:21
democracy worldwide because you see
15:24
across the developed world this
15:25
democratic recession that began in about
15:27
2005 there’s reduced the number of
15:29
democracies and turn countries like
15:32
Hungary into outright authoritarian
15:34
states have put countries like Poland on
15:36
the downward path I’ve seen the
15:38
percentage of the vote that
15:40
the neo-fascist party in France double
15:42
between 2002 and 2007 teen that seen a
15:45
neo fascist party be Commerce’s the
15:47
second largest party in the Netherlands
15:49
that has seen this
15:51
authoritarian populism re-enter the
15:53
German parliament Federal Parliament for
15:55
the first time since the war something
15:57
that these makes no uncomfortable
15:58
Germans least of all but this in this
16:03
global crisis of democracy we also have
16:05
to confront something about this country
16:08
democracy is not a light switch that is
16:10
on or off it is not true that if you
16:14
that automatically if your democracy
16:16
begins to deteriorate the next thing you
16:17
have is a democratic breakdown like the
16:19
1930s that doesn’t happen again
16:21
nothing will happen again like the 1930s
16:23
but what we are seeing is this big
16:26
question about the country and here’s
16:27
where I’ll end and throw it open to your
16:29
questions this country is changing very
16:36
fast and in a way that has left many
16:38
people stranded it is becoming more
16:41
ethnically different at a time when
16:42
relations between groups are more
16:44
contested
16:45
we have seen a breakdown in
16:46
relationships between men and women if
16:48
you look at people under 30 not only are
16:50
fewer of the married or living with a
16:52
person of the opposite sex than ever
16:54
before in the history of numbers or
16:57
recorded numbers but if you ask the
16:59
question have you had sexual a sexual
17:01
relationship with somebody in the past
17:02
three months that too is at the lowest
17:04
point since before the sexual revolution
17:06
began that we have this crisis of
17:08
aloneness in America might talk about
17:10
that in the book but people are
17:13
responding to this there’s some people
17:15
some of our fellow citizens are
17:17
responding to it by redefining what it
17:20
means to be American in a way that it
17:22
excludes a third of the country and they
17:24
are defined they’re creating a new
17:26
concept of democracy where what matters
17:29
is not do you have a majority of the
17:30
vote you have a majority of the nation
17:32
but you have a majority of that part of
17:34
the nation whose grandparents belong to
17:36
the American ethnic majority and that is
17:38
how democrates how politics is
17:40
legitimated by whether you have a
17:41
majority of the proper Americans without
17:43
regard to all of the so-called proper
17:45
Americans without regard to all of the
17:47
others that is going to whatever happens
17:49
to Donald Trump that idea is going to be
17:52
a lasting
17:53
idea for the 21st century that and it we
17:56
come I think it has already become more
17:58
explicit than ever before it will become
18:00
more explicit again and the reaction the
18:03
defense against Trump policy the system
18:06
of power is for people good will to
18:09
insist on the broadest possible
18:10
conception of citizenship the broadest
18:12
possible conception of Rights based on a
18:15
kind of a new understanding of mutuality
18:17
and new reaffirmation of the centrality
18:20
of the bond of citizenship not ethnicity
18:22
not religion
18:24
but that the the belonging to that
18:27
American community precisely because
18:30
it’s kind of arbitrary who is and who
18:33
isn’t it you take all you remove all of
18:36
the things that have that have been
18:38
familiar to the human animal brain and
18:40
substituted is something higher a
18:42
concept of citizenship of mutual of
18:44
belonging because of the desire to
18:47
belong and the willingness to share and
18:49
protect your fellow members of your
18:52
national community let me pause there
18:53
take questions thank you for your
18:55
attention
19:01
thank you for talking I recall sitting
19:04
in this room several years ago listening
19:06
to Lewis Lapham talking I don’t remember
19:09
what book he was promoting but he was
19:10
tossing that rather casually I thought
19:12
this idea of the end of democracy and I
19:15
remember sitting here seeing being sort
19:17
of flabbergasted at the idea that that
19:19
couldn’t even be in the realm of
19:21
possibility so during the Q&A; I asked
19:23
him what he thought most likely would
19:25
replace it and he said some form of
19:27
oligarchy possibly my question has to do
19:30
with the fact that I think a lot of
19:31
people adopt their political positions
19:35
fairly young and hold on them hold on to
19:37
them through their live so my question
19:39
is do what do you think of this poll
19:40
recent poll two-thirds of Millennials
19:43
have indicated that it is not essential
19:48
to live in a democracy that’s the
19:51
awesome UNK survey I cited in the book
19:53
Josh a monk is a German political
19:54
scientist now at Harvard who got a big
19:56
grant if you ask people across I think
19:58
it doesn’t have countries is it
19:59
essential to live in a democracy and
20:01
among people born in the 1930s something
20:03
like 90% said yes and among people born
20:05
since 1980 something like 25% said yes
20:08
and he just because the results are so
20:11
incredible he asked a follow-up question
20:13
because one of the things about callings
20:15
you can’t assume that the people you
20:17
asked the question to understood your
20:18
question and the same way that the
20:20
people who wrote the question did so he
20:22
did a couple of follow-ups and one of
20:23
them was well how would you feel about a
20:25
government led by a strong man who could
20:28
cut through ordinary politics and he
20:30
found that that was the opposite that
20:32
whereas people born in the 1930s almost
20:34
100% said no that among Millennials
20:37
again about it a big chunk not a
20:40
majority we’re prepared to say yes and
20:41
rising over time so what’s going on
20:44
there part of it is just distance from
20:50
world war two and in the Cold War and a
20:54
lack of remembrance of what non
20:56
democracy looked like you can imagine it
20:59
looks like a charismatic leader if you
21:00
don’t remember the last time we tried it
21:02
that way we as a species but I think
21:06
it’s also this that for the 3040 years
21:09
after World War two democracy was not
21:10
just a system for protecting citizen
21:13
participation as citizen right
21:14
it also delivered an endless stream of
21:17
miracles to ordinary people people who
21:19
had been hungry during the Depression
21:21
walked into their kitchen and there was
21:23
a refrigerator and in the driveway was a
21:25
car and there was a vacation and you
21:29
could afford to go somewhere away from
21:31
home and you had a pension and health
21:34
benefits and it worked it was magic and
21:39
even if you didn’t quite understand how
21:40
it worked you could certainly reckon
21:41
with the results and then it stopped
21:43
working and you still had the right to
21:44
participate in the production of your
21:46
rights but a lot of people were looking
21:47
for where is the magic where did it go
21:49
and for people born later that you can
21:52
see that that’s true I think my answer
21:55
to the Lewis Lapham question would be to
21:57
understand democracy is not a light
22:00
switch that is on or off it’s a modern
22:02
dimmer it’s more and less and what is
22:05
not is when we as we lose it we will not
22:08
see it suddenly collapse will for a long
22:10
time be arguing over whether anything
22:14
has changed at all but what we will see
22:17
is somewhat fewer get to vote one of the
22:21
things that I think modern authoritarian
22:23
leaders have understood was the the
22:25
among other things the authorities in
22:27
the 1930s they just were uh NECA nama
22:29
chol they overdid it you don’t need to
22:31
cancel elections even get the same
22:33
results by identifying the six points of
22:35
people and you don’t want to vote and
22:37
fighting on some way to stop them and
22:38
then you continue with the election you
22:40
don’t have to suppress the press you
22:43
know let the New York Times in the
22:44
Washington Post print whatever they like
22:45
they’re their readers you know are not
22:47
important to your project anyway go to
22:50
Facebook and manipulate that and if you
22:53
can manipulate that and that is
22:55
certainly what goes on even not only and
22:57
hungry but even in Russia were until
22:59
extremely recently The Prestige written
23:01
press was allowed to be more or less
23:03
free but television was controlled so I
23:07
don’t know what to call this new system
23:09
where it’s established I call it
23:11
repressive kleptocracy whereas where
23:14
it’s rising I call it authoritarianism
23:16
probably we need a jazzier name and then
23:19
any of that but but it’s a real thing
23:21
Esther over on this one
23:23
is either is there a second mic yes
23:26
thank you okay all right so my questions
23:28
is somewhat two-part but so so it seems
23:32
as though that the ecosystem for which
23:35
this you know us versus them is kind of
23:38
getting whiter is that there are more
23:40
people who think about them versus us
23:42
and I mean I use the example of for
23:44
instance what with this whole Nunez memo
23:47
okay
23:48
there’s been this back and forth and
23:49
even though you had like you know the
23:51
National Review they did their big you
23:53
know against Trump you know thing before
23:56
the election but I’m seeing like you
23:58
know like like quite a few of their you
24:00
know top editors and writers we’re like
24:03
you know in support of the new Nance
24:04
memo and I’m even seeing like you know
24:07
there’s like that double speak that
24:10
Trump does that you’re saying like some
24:12
of the Republican Congressmen are doing
24:14
that too in terms like oh well you know
24:16
I support the institution of the FBI but
24:19
you know we really got to do something
24:20
about you know really I do something
24:22
about you know the way this thing was
24:23
was carried out so I’m just saying that
24:26
you know even as a liberal or as a
24:30
conservative if you want to get to more
24:32
of a of a we it seems as though it is so
24:36
strong out there this this no it’s us
24:40
versus them is that how do we give back
24:41
to we and us that’s such a powerful
24:43
point I totally agree with you here’s a
24:46
something else I worry about with it the
24:48
Nunez memo it’s really Shawn a lot on
24:49
something one of the themes of the book
24:51
is even if you the nice it’s gets
24:54
through all of this more or less happily
24:55
they’re going to be some enduring
24:57
consequences and the Nunez memo and was
25:00
happening to the House Intelligence
25:00
Committee symbolizes this the United
25:04
States has spent the past half-century
25:06
putting tighter civilian and
25:09
congressional control over the national
25:11
security state over the military over
25:13
the FBI and the CIA and that has rested
25:17
a lot on the willingness of those
25:18
extremely powerful and secretive
25:21
agencies to work with Congress because
25:23
they went through the tremendous
25:24
scandals of the 1970s and out the other
25:27
end of it they realize we will be more
25:29
legitimate and more secure if we keep
25:31
Congress in the loop and not just report
25:33
to the executive but report to a House
25:35
and Senate intelligence
25:36
committee and when those for the half
25:38
century that those committees were
25:40
established they were a special prize in
25:44
Congress you didn’t just not just
25:45
anybody got all those committees it was
25:47
a ret work form of recognition for the
25:49
most public-spirited most intelligent
25:51
most hard-working most conscientious
25:53
members of both houses and they by and
25:56
large they honored their very few leaks
25:59
out of those committees I don’t I can’t
26:01
remember one maybe there’s been one I
26:02
can’t remember they have kept secrets
26:04
and the result has been the agencies
26:05
have shared information
26:08
what Nunez did was a breach of the basic
26:12
logic of how those committees are
26:13
supposed to work you have to ask
26:15
yourself if you’re a younger person at
26:19
the FBI or CA watching this that can I
26:21
share with Congress the way we did for
26:24
the past 50 years or do we need to
26:26
rethink that those agencies are always
26:27
trying to slip the leash away from
26:29
civilian control you know ask yourself
26:31
this
26:33
the president’s Daily Brief how
26:37
informative do you think that is today I
26:39
mean that under past presidents usually
26:41
three four sometimes five people would
26:43
see it the president would see it
26:44
usually the vice president always the
26:46
National Security Adviser are always the
26:48
chief of staff in the Bill Clinton
26:50
administration the first lady saw it
26:51
that was a redacted version was shared
26:54
with former presidents but the former
26:56
presidents didn’t get the full high test
26:58
stuff so four or five people Donald
27:01
Trump is apparently sharing his brief
27:02
with 14 people and he’s told the
27:04
agencies I want one page and lots of
27:06
pictures and they know that if there’s
27:09
anything really spicy in it he will
27:11
blurt it to the first visitor to the
27:13
Oval Office he wants to impress so he
27:16
wants you to leave stuff out he’s asking
27:18
you to leave stuff out it’s a lot of
27:20
work to put the stuff in together too
27:22
many people are seeing it including the
27:24
president’s son-in-law who you have a
27:26
lot of questions about if you’re a
27:27
member of an intelligence agency
27:28
I bet it’s become a lot less informative
27:30
than ever before how do you make it
27:32
informative again because these agencies
27:35
don’t they have a lot of Secrets and
27:38
it’s really on them whether they share
27:39
yes sir
27:41
hi I’m an American high school American
27:43
history teacher and until recently I
27:46
think I could have offered up an
27:48
explanation of Republic
27:50
and conservatives with which a
27:52
Republican or conservative would have
27:53
agreed and I guess recently I’m
27:56
flummoxed by the direction of the party
27:58
and so my question to you is what is or
28:01
may emerge is sort of the North Star
28:03
modern Republican conservatism after the
28:07
turmoil we’re seeing now yeah
28:09
I see three futures for the Republican
28:12
Party the most attractive is also the
28:16
least likely and that is that out of
28:19
defeat and the need to reorganize and
28:22
reconnect with new kinds of voters it
28:25
emerges as a modern right-of-center
28:28
business oriented party like the British
28:32
conservatives of the German Christian
28:33
Democrats or the Australian Liberals you
28:36
know every society has those who have
28:38
more to lose than to gain from politics
28:40
and those who have more to gain than to
28:41
lose and both are entitled to
28:43
representation you may identify with one
28:46
side or the other but you recognize that
28:47
the other exists and the people have
28:50
more to lose them to gain want a
28:52
political party and they have won in
28:54
almost every democracy historically the
28:56
Republican Party was that here and it
28:58
may go back to being that that party
29:01
would be radically de Ethne sized you
29:03
know that the the question the question
29:07
about the weird thing with the
29:08
Republican Party of say ten years ago
29:10
was why that people who you might think
29:17
would vote Republican because their
29:18
interests didn’t because they felt
29:20
insulted that you know why is in Indian
29:24
American one’s ten hotels like why isn’t
29:27
he in the Republican Party I’m dead like
29:29
God he just wants you to speak politely
29:31
to him and then he’s got a lot in common
29:33
with the historical vote we’re the
29:35
lesbian partner in an accounting firm
29:36
why isn’t she you know with her high
29:38
income of a Republican or the you know
29:41
perfect you know professionals of
29:42
different ethnic backgrounds you know
29:44
why aren’t they that was always the
29:46
question I mean not you know no party
29:49
should get a hundred percent of the
29:50
voter want it there are a lot of people
29:51
who shouldn’t be high school history
29:53
teachers probably are not going to be
29:54
Republicans but that’s why you have
29:57
competitive elections so that’s one
30:01
future a second future is that the party
30:04
continues on the path it was before
30:05
Trump and that is a highly economically
30:08
individualistic party very plutocratic
30:10
that can appeal to that cannot win a
30:13
national majority that has a lot some
30:16
ethno-nationalism it just enough to
30:18
energize a base not enough to be a
30:20
majority and that that party then
30:22
becomes competitive mostly at the state
30:25
level and as a party of congress where
30:28
it basically exercises a veto over the
30:31
majorities that democratic presidents
30:32
can summon and that was the path the
30:34
party’s been on since and from 2010 and
30:37
until now a veto party that would backed
30:39
by forty three forty four percent of the
30:41
country but there’s another future that
30:43
donald trump has pointed to and that is
30:45
the and the future you see of the right
30:47
parties in europe of an a party of
30:50
ethno-cultural assertion by down by less
30:54
educated white americans backed by the
30:56
country’s political elite and that’s the
31:01
path it’s on now and that path may work
31:04
politically but it doesn’t work as a way
31:06
to govern the country and it doesn’t
31:08
work and it although it pushes the
31:10
democrats by the way in danger in
31:11
directions that are also very dangerous
31:12
because one of the questions that
31:14
doesn’t get it asked enough and maybe
31:16
this is a crowd to offer this hard
31:18
teaching to the democrats have two
31:21
futures ahead of them one is they become
31:23
they become the eisenhower party the
31:25
party of the big american is you know
31:28
middle you know unlike eyes now slightly
31:32
lift listening for the left but that you
31:34
know adds to its traditional base the
31:38
people who voted for Romney but not for
31:40
Trump I talk in the book about what
31:41
happened the state of Pennsylvania where
31:43
Trump and Pat Toomey both got 1.2
31:46
million votes almost exactly the same
31:48
number of votes but but to me ran two
31:50
hundred thousand votes ahead of Crump in
31:52
the well-to-do suburbs of Philadelphia
31:54
and Trump ran two hundred thousand votes
31:55
ahead of to me in the area to
31:57
de-industrialized areas around
31:59
Pittsburgh and mining country and those
32:01
two hundred thousand votes are probably
32:05
more available than ever to a Democratic
32:07
candidate especially the women and you
32:11
can imagine such a Democratic Party but
32:12
you can also imagine a Democratic Party
32:14
that looks at what is that follows the
32:16
same pressures
32:17
that has taken the labour party in
32:19
England where it is going or in Britain
32:20
and becomes a party of ethnic identity
32:23
of its own kind it more in thrall to its
32:27
activist base more energized and I think
32:30
that’s the way at least the Democrat the
32:32
22:20 primary candidates are betting the
32:35
party is going and although that may
32:37
possibly work I don’t think it will but
32:39
it may possibly it’s again no basis to
32:41
govern the country yes over there I’m a
32:44
little afraid my question that might
32:45
seem unrelated to the rise of Trump and
32:47
his electoral victory by a tiny margin
32:51
but I think it is related how much do
32:54
you think the rise of this nasty
32:55
populism in the United States and even
32:57
more in Europe is due to the
33:00
unwillingness of responsible leaders in
33:04
both parties to consider the threat of
33:06
Islam to Western values well I think the
33:12
failure to cope with mass migration is
33:15
an is the proximate cause of one
33:18
exception what is that
33:20
but-but-but-but the reason we are so
33:24
sensitive to Muslims in particular is
33:26
that the countries filled they’ve lost
33:30
control of their borders and where
33:33
countries feel they have lost control of
33:35
their borders you get these populist
33:36
reactions I mean if I were giving this
33:38
talk in 2014 and I was asked which are
33:41
the countries that have been least
33:42
susceptible see this kind of movement I
33:44
was at Canada Australia and Germany and
33:46
then Germany had this huge influx in
33:48
2015 and suddenly the alternative for
33:50
Germany their version of this kind of
33:52
politics is in the national parliament
33:54
had the board I mean as a phrase I often
33:58
use is if liberals insist that only
34:00
fascists will patrol the boat the
34:01
borders then the voters will hire
34:03
fascists to do the job that liberals
34:05
won’t do but I I think it’s an illusion
34:08
to believe that there is something about
34:11
Muslims as Muslims that makes Muslims
34:13
inherently dangerous ideology you know
34:20
one of the things I believe about all
34:23
religions is it is really kind of
34:25
amazing our ability to make relate to
34:29
model God out
34:30
upon ourselves if we want to be violent
34:33
we will find whatever our tradition a
34:36
lot of opportunities a lot of
34:38
instructions to be violent if we want to
34:40
be kind we can find it and no religion
34:44
is a very plastic thing and I speak here
34:48
someone who was Jewish that for much of
34:51
our history that we found a more
34:54
comfortable refuge in the Islamic world
34:55
than in the Christian world that ceased
34:57
to be true it became more comfortable
34:59
and there are things that are going on
35:01
in the Arab Muslim world in particular
35:03
because their mothers I mean the largest
35:05
Muslim country on Earth is Indonesia
35:06
where there was very little of this kind
35:08
of radicalism but there are things that
35:09
are going on in the Arab Muslim world
35:11
that are very concerning
35:12
but if country if citizens feel that
35:15
their borders are protected that they be
35:17
they react differently than if they feel
35:19
their borders are not protected so first
35:23
off I just want to say it’s always great
35:25
to see a fellow Canadian down here thank
35:26
you and solan question in Europe senior
35:30
editor at the Atlantic and earlier this
35:33
week more Canadian coverage that’s not
35:34
very high
35:36
the dairy board does not get nearly
35:38
enough attention there was an article
35:42
this week from Jonathan rau-chan
35:43
Benjamin witty that’s called boycott the
35:46
Republican Party and they’re both you
35:48
know very nonpartisan but the idea was
35:50
to deal with trumpism in the short term
35:52
people should be voting down about a
35:55
crop in every office well against
35:58
Republicans for Democrats so just as a
35:59
Republican I wanted to know how you felt
36:00
about that well it’s funny raising that
36:01
because I was on a panel with Jonathan
36:04
and Ben this morning Jonathan is about
36:07
my oldest surviving friend I haven’t we
36:09
have been friends since the fall of 1978
36:11
he would wince if I gave the actual
36:14
numbers but there’s just no blinking it
36:15
is true and Ben has a friend of
36:18
long-standing so here’s what I would say
36:19
to that and I said I said this is what I
36:21
said to them I understand why they are
36:26
led to feel the way they do and they’re
36:27
both neither them is a very partisan
36:29
person and Jonathan is always very
36:31
insistent that George HW Bush was the
36:32
greatest president of his lifetime and
36:34
the one he voted for most
36:35
enthusiastically but I have a one-word
36:40
answer and that is California that
36:42
America’s most dynamic and
36:44
the state is a one-party ecosystem and
36:47
that even if you’re a liberal and
36:49
especially if you’re not is not good for
36:51
anybody so when people say why are you
36:53
if I lived in California where my two
36:54
older kids I mean we may end up there I
36:57
would be voting for Republicans for
36:59
state assembly and state Senate for the
37:01
familiar reasons you know more you know
37:03
I prefer a government that offers lower
37:05
taxes and fewer services so there are a
37:08
lot of places at the local level where
37:10
in fact one of the ways one of the
37:12
reasons we’re in trouble you all know
37:14
the saying all politics is local but a
37:17
couple years ago political scientist
37:18
whose name I forgot wrote a book called
37:20
all politics is national and because he
37:22
was observing this the rising
37:24
correlation between votes in state races
37:26
and the approval rating in the state of
37:28
the present so I you’d like the
37:31
president you don’t like the president
37:32
why does that determine who should be
37:34
the head of the Nebraska assembly but in
37:38
fact it was rising and I think one of
37:40
the ways to be healthier is for people
37:42
to affirm you know the distinctly
37:43
federal nature of the American system
37:45
and it doesn’t do for the Democrats to
37:49
two-thirds of the seats in both houses
37:51
of the California Legislature that is
37:53
not healthy one thing it does it leads
37:55
to the replacement of party politics by
37:57
factional politics which are always more
37:59
secretive do you think that
38:08
gerrymandering is a big factor in I
38:14
guess the kind of recalcitrant attitudes
38:19
in our representatives or okay
38:24
gerrymandering sure doesn’t help but in
38:27
in the list of American of its one of
38:30
the important things and the ills of the
38:32
American legislative system along with
38:35
the increasing difficulty that people
38:37
find in casting a vote in in many states
38:40
also with the the rising role of money
38:44
although I probably have a different
38:45
view of that than most people in this
38:47
room do I see the rising rote role of
38:50
money in politics not as a cause of our
38:53
problems but as a symptom you know in we
38:56
know very little about how elections
38:57
were financed before
38:58
1975 and we know almost nothing but how
39:01
elections were financed before 1930 it
39:03
was until the 70s it was legal to give
39:05
campaign donations in cash and that is
39:07
how Lyndon Johnson financed much of his
39:09
career and we have no idea who gave him
39:10
that cash
39:11
but but one thing we do know which is
39:13
that the elections just used to cost a
39:15
lot less and the reason they cost so
39:17
much less is because even if you had a
39:19
lot of money what would you do with it
39:21
you could buy radio and TV ads but when
39:24
it came time to get voted to register
39:27
voters and get voters to the polls you
39:28
relied on unions if you’re a Republican
39:32
you relied on women from the Protestant
39:34
churches you relied on other kinds of
39:37
associations you didn’t have to they did
39:40
it for nothing or they did it because it
39:42
was part of their identity because they
39:43
belonged to a group what the Koch
39:45
brothers when they spend all those
39:47
hundreds of millions of dollars they’re
39:48
spending them not on advertising but on
39:51
replacing the organizational work done
39:53
by institutions that just don’t mobilize
39:55
people anymore
39:57
if you had those kinds of healthy’ that
39:59
healthy associational life you wouldn’t
40:01
have to spend money to get people to the
40:03
polls people would do it for their
40:04
neighbors for their partisan reasons the
40:06
collapse of the parties and the rise of
40:09
these these this massive expenditure is
40:11
a consequence of the weakening of the
40:13
associations of Americans one to another
40:15
so I don’t see a ready solution to all
40:17
of that I mean the gerrymandering
40:18
problem on its own is a pretty easy
40:20
problem to imagine a fix for you know
40:22
you you say you pass a amendment to your
40:24
state constitution that says the seats
40:26
will be allocated by a Board of retired
40:27
judges and that’s that’s easy to fix
40:30
but the obstacles to people voting and
40:33
above all the collapse of associations
40:36
that make money indispensable to getting
40:38
people to vote that’s not so easy to fix
40:40
as a journalist and as a former White
40:44
House message crafter what do you make
40:47
of the performance of the current White
40:50
House press office in their role of
40:53
normalizing many of the extraordinary
40:57
things that are coming out of this
40:58
administration for example most recently
41:02
glossa fiying the trees and comments as
41:06
a joke and also the irony that it
41:11
a woman who’s out there up front
41:14
defending him seemingly with gusto I
41:17
watch the show as you do and think I
41:21
think you know you could get a job at
41:25
some nice tobacco company somewhere you
41:29
don’t have to do this I think a lot
41:37
about I think a lot about the White
41:39
House staff and what different people do
41:41
because their roles their their role
41:44
their situations which are genuinely
41:45
tragic where we need to have a National
41:48
Security Council we really do and people
41:51
have to undertake it and yet it’s also
41:53
inevitably true that if you take it you
41:55
will be corrupted and there’s something
41:58
very tragic I mean likes like a
41:59
existentialist novel with people have to
42:01
sign up and even the people with the
42:03
best will have to sign out and accepting
42:05
that they will be worse people at the
42:07
end of the experience than they were and
42:09
but but that but there are lots of jobs
42:11
you don’t have to do at all nobody and
42:14
if somebody has to be you know sistent
42:17
Secretary of State for East Asian
42:18
affairs and and we are worse off when
42:22
there isn’t such a person but you know
42:24
white house consumption without a press
42:26
secretary in no particular person the
42:28
country’s not losing anything you know
42:29
if you don’t and you look at it why are
42:35
they doing it I mean that I in the book
42:36
I talk about I have a debate with Elliot
42:38
Cohen that I reproduce not a debate but
42:40
a discussion with Elliot Cohen who many
42:41
of you may know and we talked about this
42:44
question of should you serve the
42:45
president in a personal capacity not in
42:47
national security capacity and I I my
42:52
reaction that is you know maybe if you
42:55
get if you get the call maybe you should
42:57
consider it but you should understand
42:59
that you will be put into a position
43:00
where you were asked to do something
43:01
wrong that’s almost inevitable and you
43:03
have to know yourself and know whether
43:05
you will be able to say no and then you
43:07
have to consider this that if the person
43:09
hiring you we’re certain is you that you
43:11
would say no to the wrong thing you
43:12
would probably not be offered the job
43:15
I apologize in advance for my
43:17
light-hearted question you can use one
43:20
question can you reflect a little bit on
43:22
your relationship with the mooch and
43:25
also also did you know that he went to
43:28
Harvard you know one of the things I saw
43:32
this you know when he said that one of
43:35
the things I did not say and I’m not
43:37
sorry about doesn’t mean it was an
43:38
inside joke was I think you mean to say
43:40
he went to law school in Cambridge okay
43:45
so he’s my new best friend um okay yeah
43:48
it’s a jokey question but let’s say
43:50
something serious about this I mean it
43:51
is amazing that this person had a
43:54
high-level job in the White House even
43:56
for a very short time that just and you
43:59
see this again I mean with the terror of
44:01
the much more serious and more terrible
44:03
story of the staff secretary that the
44:05
absence of self-command that you have
44:07
people in the White House who could not
44:09
get a visitor’s pass I mean literally
44:11
said Sebastian Gorka had an open arrest
44:14
warrant from the government of Hungary
44:15
and for a gun violation and this guy is
44:18
walking around in the presence of the
44:20
president someone who has a you know and
44:22
he has by the way some gun violations in
44:24
this country that any other even once
44:26
strongly committed to gun rights would
44:28
say you know a person with a problem
44:30
with guns shouldn’t be close to the
44:31
president so so that would that was an
44:35
extraordinary thing you know the
44:37
question I asked him a question about
44:39
his financial dealings and basically if
44:43
you were asked question you know you’ve
44:45
done some things and they look kind of
44:47
dubious um explain why if you’re talking
44:51
to someone who is a sort of a normal
44:54
person they would be able to bury you
44:56
with their information because I know
44:58
I’ve done a little bit of research as
44:59
you would understand before I ask the
45:01
question but obviously he knows a
45:02
hundred times more about his own company
45:04
than I do he should have been able to
45:05
crush me and the fact that he lost
45:08
control of himself I think answer the
45:10
question in the eyes of America
45:12
obviously this is a very sensitive
45:13
sensitive subject on the other hand look
45:16
here’s the here’s on the plus side I’m
45:18
not a housewife I’m not a real housewife
45:20
or a phony housewife or any kind of
45:21
housewife I’m not a celebrity to be on
45:23
the recipient of a TMZ rant that is
45:26
something that I never
45:27
thought would happen to me and I owe
45:29
that to the mooch good evening speaking
45:34
earlier you mentioned the last page of
45:35
your book that one of the antidotes to
45:36
the Trump movement is conciliation
45:37
that’s one of the words you use
45:38
conciliatory and so far we’ve seen on
45:40
both sides of the aisle Democrats have
45:42
the resistance movement Senate Democrats
45:43
have overall just by changing today you
45:45
know typically been recalcitrant to
45:47
anything this administration has wanted
45:49
so my question really is does the
45:50
antidote to Trump conciliation come from
45:52
both parties or is it one that can be
45:54
resolved by one partisan or one party or
45:56
the other I was thinking more of the
45:58
attitude of individual people and that
46:05
so in Congress Congress has its own
46:08
rhythms and its own dynamics and I think
46:10
was incredibly foolish of a Democrats to
46:12
be drawn into the government shutdown
46:13
and when they were the trap that was so
46:16
obviously waiting for them instantly
46:19
sprang sure they shut down the Congress
46:20
for over two issues children’s health
46:22
and daca
46:23
the Republicans instantly surrendered on
46:25
children’s health health as if the
46:27
Democrat as they you could have
46:28
predicted if you thought about it for
46:30
even two minutes in advance or as if you
46:31
were not driven by your 2020 primary
46:34
competitors and so the Democrats shut
46:36
down the government for illegal aliens
46:37
and that was the story that the
46:39
Republicans wanted from the very start
46:40
and the story that they got so that’s a
46:43
story about just having a little bit of
46:44
of prudence and not being in thrall to
46:46
your 2020 candidates in your democratic
46:48
base but the conciliation means more I
46:51
think you know as the we have completed
46:58
the recovery from the crisis of 2009 we
47:01
live in a country in which in the
47:03
successful parts of the country life is
47:05
really kind of a maze and there are
47:08
opportunities and there’s work and the
47:10
food’s great and until we get submerged
47:13
beneath the onrushing oceans you know
47:16
like the cities are or ggest they’re
47:18
incredibly safe you know it’s a striking
47:20
thing that that places like New York and
47:23
Boston and Washington to a lesser degree
47:24
and becomes so much safer than the
47:27
heartland of America I mean I was I was
47:29
in Louisville Kentucky the other day and
47:31
they have a crime rate suddenly 14 times
47:32
higher than that of New York City that
47:35
it’s an incredible an incredible thing
47:38
and of course the drug drawback epidemic
47:40
is senator did the
47:40
middle of the country and lesson the
47:42
coast so the conciliation means that the
47:46
advantage parts of the country need to
47:48
understand what is going on in the rest
47:51
of the country and just generally that
47:53
should be our approach to politics as a
47:55
story I often think about in terms of
47:57
political communications those of you
47:59
who remember the 1992 election may
48:01
remember the third debate between Bush
48:04
Perot and Clinton the town hall debate
48:06
moderated by Carol Simpson then at ABC
48:09
they took questions and the questions
48:11
have settled the election was the this
48:13
is the I feel you’re paying moment a
48:16
woman was called on an older woman
48:19
obviously not very well educated and
48:21
obviously extremely nervous at being on
48:23
television for the one and probably only
48:26
time in her life and with a quavering
48:28
voice she asked I’d like to ask each of
48:29
the candidates how you have been
48:32
personally affected by the deficit panic
48:37
no one’s personally affected by the
48:39
deficit and I’ll cut the story short
48:41
Bush flubs the question Perot gives a
48:43
characteristically insane answer and and
48:46
then Bill Clinton steps forward with
48:49
that huge body of his and said and says
48:51
to them I will answer your question but
48:53
first I have a question for you how have
48:54
you personally been affected by the
48:56
deficit and as she answers it becomes
48:58
clear that either she forgot or else she
49:01
never knew the difference between the
49:02
deficit and the recession that was
49:04
taking place at the time and once Bill
49:07
Clinton understood what she was asking
49:08
out 400 feet into center field but it’s
49:15
important to remember that the language
49:17
of politics is a second or third
49:19
language for most of your fellow
49:20
citizens that it is hard for them to
49:23
tell you what is on their minds and they
49:26
use words that they’ve heard from other
49:29
people they’re trying to express
49:31
themselves in ways that they hope will
49:32
be intelligible to others and or and
49:35
when they use their private language
49:36
their own language it often seems rough
49:38
or crude or insulting or insensitive and
49:40
so the challenge for those with
49:43
advantages in life is to hear the
49:45
question behind the question and to be
49:48
able to understand what people are
49:49
really concerned about with a language
49:51
doesn’t come easily to them
49:53
thank you I was wondering if you have
49:56
suggestions on how we could find
49:58
conservatives who don’t identify with
50:00
trumpism so that we could form
50:04
communities in person there’s no because
50:06
I think associations are broken yeah and
50:08
not focused on politics but protecting
50:11
rule of law and our norms that’s a great
50:15
question I think to some degree it is
50:17
happening I mean there are such
50:18
discussion groups I know I’m participant
50:20
in a couple of them here in Washington
50:22
right now Trump has the glamour of
50:25
apparent success and that is especially
50:27
true after the passage of the tax cut if
50:30
he looks a little less glossy I think
50:33
you’ll hear from more of these people
50:34
but the place where the work can really
50:36
be done most fruitfully is at the state
50:38
level and where I think it’s possible
50:45
especially in the one-party states like
50:49
California that I think that we’re going
50:52
to need to see work between reform
50:54
minded Democrats who are not Tammany
50:55
Hall people and their Republican
50:57
opposite numbers to try to say how do
50:59
you do in a state where things are as
51:01
lopsided you deliver good honest
51:03
government and make sure that elections
51:05
remain competitive not for the sake of
51:07
the Republicans but for the sake of
51:08
those states yes sir David thank you for
51:13
coming tonight so I have a question
51:14
about symptoms and causes so you know
51:18
we’ve talked about Trump being kind of a
51:20
symptom and not so much cause the sick
51:22
current system we talked about
51:23
gerrymandering being kind of a symptom
51:26
and not a cause or or dark money being a
51:28
symptom and not a cause of the system as
51:30
a student of politics in history can you
51:31
talk a little bit about what some of
51:33
these causes are it might be um you know
51:35
I mean I read your piece on the seven
51:37
guardrails of democracy
51:38
I’m reading Nixon Ilyn right now and a
51:40
lot of this seems pretty similar so if
51:41
you could share some some of the causes
51:43
you’ve seen and maybe talk a little bit
51:45
about that well I think the the master
51:50
causes of trouble in this in this kind
51:52
of this new situation and we always have
51:55
troubles by the way so we do but this
51:56
new situation are the following the
51:58
first is the slowdown of that economic
52:00
growth since the year 2000 there’s less
52:02
to go around the next is the aging of
52:05
the baby boom
52:06
which means that the people who are now
52:08
in their 60s are arriving the point
52:10
where they’re going to make the biggest
52:11
claims on the state at exactly the
52:13
moment when they feel there is less to
52:14
go around and so much of the Tea Party
52:16
and things like that should be seen as
52:18
the baby boomers are the white baby
52:20
boomers they’re sort of their last
52:22
hurrah of their role in politics making
52:24
the politics of group generational
52:26
assertion of their claims on the state
52:30
immigration and rising ethnic diversity
52:33
which is always difficult to manage and
52:36
which governing elites have tended to
52:38
think is easy to manage is automatically
52:40
managed I think the end of the Cold War
52:42
which has destroyed a lot of the best
52:46
habits of American elites especially in
52:50
Congress of give-and-take because the
52:51
country was engaged in in a generational
52:54
in this kind of epic struggle and and
52:57
then this and it’s not driven by the
53:01
economy that’s connected by this kind of
53:03
cultural collapse in the face of
53:05
globalization in the middle of the
53:06
country which has left people gripped by
53:09
a despair and looking for solutions the
53:11
best description I’ve ever heard of a
53:13
trump voter is a successful person in an
53:16
unsuccessful place that the unsuccessful
53:19
people give up on politics they they
53:21
don’t they don’t believe they can make a
53:23
difference but imagine like the vice
53:26
president of the high school the vice
53:27
principal of a high school and the coach
53:28
of the football team in a small town
53:30
facing deindustrialization he believes
53:33
that he can make a difference and he
53:34
believes things your members and things
53:36
were better and he believes the things
53:37
should be better but he sees nothing but
53:40
worry around him and he’s ready to
53:43
embrace extremist answers and into that
53:47
steps demagogic figures Trump in this
53:50
country are the people in other
53:51
countries thank you thank you thank you
53:55
for an interesting talk the founding
53:57
fathers were suspicious of the pure
54:00
forms of government kingship aristocracy
54:04
democracy because they thought that each
54:08
of them had characteristic flaws and the
54:11
floor they saw in democracy is that it
54:14
tends to throw up populist demagogues so
54:19
they designed a system of separation of
54:22
powers to control that my question is is
54:26
it going to work well they wrote a
54:30
system of government and it’s been
54:32
written rewritten and rewritten again I
54:35
think one of the important of the
54:39
benefits of a really close study of
54:41
history is you come after a while to
54:43
know these people as people you might
54:46
have known in your own life and that
54:48
there’s this there’s this way of talking
54:50
about the founding generation as if they
54:52
were demigods and by the way as if they
54:54
were all one thing people talk about the
54:55
founders forgetting they hated each
54:57
other a couple one of them killed
55:01
another and and and then another one
55:06
tried to hang the one who killed the
55:07
other and they and through the Civil War
55:11
and through reconstruction we rewrote a
55:14
lot of their system and the New Deal we
55:15
rewrote it again
55:17
and while we inherit the system and it’s
55:19
continuous that the answers there’s a
55:26
the the answers are in us we can’t just
55:30
look backwards but I’ll tell you one
55:31
thing that they did anticipate is that
55:33
there’s a lot of discussion in the notes
55:37
of James Madison about the 1787
55:39
Constitution about the risk of
55:41
corruption in the presidency they were
55:43
intensely aware of this problem and they
55:47
had seen it they had seen Republic’s
55:49
snuffed out in their time in 1787 you
55:51
know the Polish Republic was about to be
55:54
carved up they had seen Sweden which had
55:57
a kind of which was a monarchy that I
55:58
did republic ripped apart by the
56:00
intervention of foreign governments in
56:01
his politics and the thing they worried
56:03
about a lot was the United States
56:04
comparatively small and weak in poor
56:06
country with three powerful neighbors
56:07
Spain France and England on the in the
56:09
Western Hemisphere would they try to
56:11
bribe the president and at the at the
56:14
convention they talked twice of what the
56:16
example of charles ii he was the King of
56:18
England and Scotland at the time of the
56:20
grandparents and great-grandparents of
56:21
the authors of the Constitution who took
56:23
bribes from the King of France in order
56:25
to allow the King of France to make more
56:27
on the Netherlands without England
56:28
intervening and who surrendered land on
56:30
the continent to France and the Charles
56:33
second example the corrupt president in
56:35
the pay of a foreign power that is
56:37
something they thought about a lot and I
56:39
think their remarks have some
56:40
instruction to us because I think that
56:42
is the part of where we are now that
56:43
would not surprise them
56:44
it was 230 years good run but the
56:48
problem did eventually show up I think
56:49
this is the last question I want to tell
56:51
you I really enjoy your appearances on
56:53
Bill Maher thank you very much I think
56:55
you saw the last one I thought you were
56:58
very principled and didn’t you say you
57:00
had voted for Hillary and I wrote that
57:02
um you know one of the things that has
57:04
been a rule of mine I have no illusions
57:07
about how interesting or not interesting
57:09
my personal thought processes are but I
57:11
do feel that when you’ve taken any
57:13
position in public if you change your
57:15
mind about anything you owe the eleven
57:17
people who care some kind of account of
57:20
why you’ve done it so so I wrote I did
57:23
vote for Hillary it was a difficult
57:26
thing to do I wasn’t actually I was not
57:28
in DC on election day I cast an absentee
57:29
ballot and got in the mail I filled it
57:31
out and then it sat in my outbox for
57:33
about five days as I hesitated but in
57:39
the end I believed you know I have a lot
57:40
I have a lot of problems with her maybe
57:43
others do too but I believe in the end
57:47
two things about her one was that she
57:49
was a patriot and the other was that she
57:55
would she knew the job because one of
57:59
the things I’ve really come to believe
58:00
is there such a thing as being good at
58:02
the job of president independent of
58:04
whether you’re delivering the right
58:05
answers I’m just do you have the ability
58:07
to run a meeting where you make sure the
58:11
the most junior and least important
58:13
person the meeting always talks first do
58:15
you know that do you know how to manage
58:17
the staff process do you know who did it
58:20
had a staff and administration so I
58:21
believe she knew all of those things and
58:23
I also believed and this is one thing
58:26
that I try to impart to my conservative
58:27
friends one of the habits of mind of
58:30
people on the right is the belief that
58:31
we’re always five minutes from midnight
58:34
on the tipping point which are Paul Ryan
58:36
gave that speech and I believe politics
58:39
never ends and when you lose it’s the
58:41
setup to the time you win and when you
58:43
win is the setup to the time you lose
58:46
that you have to play for the the long
58:47
game and the belief and what threatens
58:50
democracies maybe almost more than
58:51
anything else is the belief that this
58:53
moment of decision is so important that
58:55
anything anything you can do to win is
58:58
worth doing because you will never get
59:00
another chance and we have to preserve
59:02
the system which makes sure there’s
59:04
always another chance and that you know
59:06
in a under president you don’t like your
59:07
present your rights are still protected
59:09
and under president I don’t like my
59:11
rights are still protected and that we
59:12
can continue to follow these rules
59:14
together for decades and centuries thank
59:17
you so maybe you’re gonna have a
59:20
following well I didn’t really ask a
59:22
question I just I thought that was the
59:24
I’m sorry all right sorry III don’t mean
59:29
this to be patronizing but why are you a
59:32
Republican what attracted you to two
59:35
conservative principles I’m not putting
59:38
that I’m not saying you can’t be
59:40
principled but yeah you don’t seem like
59:43
your average I’m a pretty weird do
59:47
generally sir but why am i Republican
59:51
I’m first on the core question of are
59:56
you someone who has more to lose from
59:57
politics than to gain I’m that person do
59:59
you are you someone who is in the are
60:01
you concerned with markets and business
60:03
and private property that that’s me do
60:05
you want to see the private sector
60:06
bigger and the public sector smaller yes
60:08
if I said if I live in California I be a
60:11
very enthusiastic supporter of the
60:13
Republican Party of California against a
60:15
Democratic Party that I think cost too
60:16
much but one other thing that and why
60:19
I’m especially Republican now because
60:20
these are like they’re proud in any the
60:22
history of any party they’re proud or in
60:24
less proud moments and like it was 1864
60:26
up here and there’s 2016 down here but a
60:32
political system doesn’t work very well
60:34
if there’s one party committed to
60:36
democratic norms and only one party you
60:38
need to and I think that those of us who
60:40
believe in both conservatism and
60:42
democracy are more needed than ever
60:44
inside the Republican Party and you
60:45
should run to where the trouble is not
60:47
away from where the trouble is that’s
60:49
true
60:52
thank you all we actually have one one
60:57
final oh I’m sorry
60:58
I bungled that this is a follow-up to a
61:03
previous question tonight concerned
61:05
about religious fundamentalism in its
61:09
influence of America I share that
61:14
concern very much and I don’t like the
61:17
way religious fundamentalism is emerging
61:22
in politics I don’t like the granting of
61:26
religious freedom to corporations or to
61:29
freedom of speech for corporations
61:32
especially with political financing I
61:35
really don’t care for so-called
61:41
self-appointed religious evangelicals
61:45
supporting a child molester wackadoodle
61:50
judge in Alabama all right again he said
61:54
I’m really interested in what you think
61:55
about if you could assess the move
61:59
currently underway in gathering steam of
62:04
religious fundamentalist Christian
62:07
Sharia law okay okay well let me say
62:11
you’re in for a treat because you have
62:14
now in office the least religious
62:16
president in American history running an
62:19
administration in a White House that is
62:21
less hung up on religious morality then
62:25
they do everything I mean it’s just
62:27
unbelievable you know when Hillary
62:34
Clinton was asked that question the
62:35
debate is there anything good you can
62:36
say about Donald Trump she answered I
62:39
like the way he raised his kids which is
62:40
an answer she might want to take back or
62:42
rethink but here’s the thing I can say
62:45
that is good about Donald Trump is that
62:47
he’s not a hypocrite that he never
62:49
pretended to be a good man and he’s not
62:50
a good man he doesn’t pretend to be
62:52
otherwise and he doesn’t protect their
62:54
people who around him he will tell you
62:55
that he’s religious he’s so obviously
62:56
not but here’s the thing that is
63:00
happening the Trump years and I think
63:01
Trump himself is going to accelerate
63:02
this that he
63:04
in the 1990s if you surveyed American
63:06
religious attitudes you saw a country
63:08
that was dramatically more religious
63:10
than any other developed country I mean
63:12
Americans 90 percent or whatever was
63:14
believe in God believe him life after
63:16
death
63:16
huge huge huge overwhelming almost
63:20
unanimity answering religious beliefs
63:23
then when you observed religious
63:25
practice what you two saw was a country
63:27
that didn’t look that different from
63:29
other developed countries where if you
63:30
looked at how many people went to church
63:32
or other behaviors there’s this huge gap
63:34
between what Americans said and what
63:36
Americans did and in the 21st century
63:39
that gap began to close and close very
63:42
very fast and you saw this huge increase
63:44
in Americans who said they had no
63:45
religion you didn’t see a decline in
63:47
Americans going to church that was a lot
63:50
of people had been sort of weekly
63:52
religious before identified as religious
63:54
without doing it stop doing so and I
63:57
think that trend I’m guessing the people
63:59
like Roy Moore and the attitude of
64:01
evangelicals to Donald Trump may
64:02
probably accelerate that and that you’re
64:05
going to see a more validly secular
64:06
country in future whether that’s a good
64:08
thing or not however I really have to
64:10
question because religious faith as a
64:14
way of guiding individual behavior is a
64:19
POW is the most powerful tool we talked
64:22
I talked with general last question but
64:24
Islam of it at religion as an ability to
64:25
bring out the bad it’s also force that
64:27
can bring out the good when we wish it
64:28
and when we lose it and we are losing it
64:31
fast
64:32
I think we’re gonna lose something
64:34
something precious and that religious
64:38
people I think one of the ways that
64:40
younger evangelicals will speak about
64:42
their about the the grams and the fall
64:45
Wells is that they have failed them is
64:46
that they have seen religion as a system
64:49
of political power and not as an
64:50
inspiration toward greater goodness and
64:53
kindness and in human beings
64:55
[Music]
64:59
[Applause]
65:13
you
Up next
AUTOPLAY